Why is modern UK passenger rail so poorly represented in RTR?

[newbryford]

2 hours ago, PMP said:

The obvious way round this would be for manufacturers to make contemporary equipment without livery in either white or a very light grey. Products we know take several years to progress from announcement to filling shelves. Manufacturers can then sell the blank livery models fully assembled RTR. The end customer paints or decals the model to their satisfaction. This means that any train operator that changes livery between tooling and model release can be accommodated. The livery licenses can be overcome as people can copy and make decals for their own personal use and print them themselves.

 

There’s a problem with this of course. We already know there’s a ‘reluctance’ to buy un-numbered models to add your own number to, let alone a full livery.
 

But that would be the easy way around it, the US market has similar in that locomotives and rolling stock are frequently offered as kits or unpainted  RTR locomotives. If that were to occur, don’t expect savings in the end price of the model, if it doesn’t happen in the tested market of North America, it won’t happen here. But if modellers want contemporary equipment that sales are to a degree future proofed for a manufacturer to invest in tooling, blank livery models are the way forward.

 

 

As technology improves (and becomes cheaper) , the likes of Rainbow Railways and others have been offering bespoke printed models on top of base colours.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

Except that the majority of North American rolling stock kits  are supplied with fully painted and lettered bodies. Undecorated kits are available from the usual manufacturers but they cost the same. Unless it's changed since I was modelling North American railways and buying rolling stock from Victors, the bodies were generally moulded as a single piece in plastic of the appropriate base colour. The big difference from here was that rail companies rarely built their own rolling stock so car designs were faiirly standardised. Passenger and freight cars rarely seemed to be supplied RTR (apart from the "toy" ones) but frankly, anyone unable to assemble a "shake the box" kit from Athearn, Roundhouse et al. isn't going to get very far as amodeller. All you had to do was to add the roof walk and brake wheel to the body, add the centre sill to the underframe, fit the Kadees and screw on the trucks. 

I would though doubt the ability of many modellers to reproduce the complex paint schemes of modern TOCs

Yes it has changed, considerably. Here’s an example

https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/product/undecorated-kit-pullman-roof/

 

With more and more ‘standard’ locomotives and rolling stock, the possibility of ‘blank’ kits is there. Whether they’re viable in the marketplace is another matter. The complexity of liveries would be for the purchaser to resolve.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

For years the ATSF Employee Timetables and those of today's Grand Canyon Railroad contained the instruction:  "On arrival, trains will turn on the wye and reverse into Grand Canyon".  Given the location of the tail track in relation to the chasm I've always had this mental image of a train disappearing over the edge!  

 

I'm not sure how many trains the ATSF operated over the line but its "Grand Canyon" streamliner wasn't one of them.

 

Fortunately the Y is on the far side of the line from the Canyon side of the line as the station is only 154 metres from the rim!

This is very off topic but, since we started I might as well finish

I've just had a good look on Google Earth (search for Grand Canyon Village) and hence Street View. The area each side of the tail track is now fairly built up with several "lodges" -basically motels but presumably operated by the Parks Service: it was all trees when I first visited in 1971.

Curiously there is a siding off the tail track that splits into two at its far end and I assume the freight depot was moved to there (early photos show it opposite the station). In 1971, I don't think there was anything there apart from the tail track itself. There is a building alongside the siding that parallels the tail track that looks like it might have been a freight depot. It's now  the National Park Service's  Back Country Information Center but, at its rear, there is a platform (at 85m too short for a full length passenger train) alongside the siding. A tank wagon sits at the end of the siding, presumably fuel oil for the locos (steam and diesel) but I couldn't make out anything that looked like a watering facility for the steam locos that still run monthly and for specials. 

 

The station  itself has four tracks (with the remains of two more  and i think a seventh serving a freight depot to the west of the station building. The furthest one from the station building is served by a 380m long platform (the same length as the tail track clear of a newish level crossing). The middle two are either side of a low concrete island platform 223m long and the track nearest the station building is without a platform and possibly used as a carriage siding. I think it may be an extension of the original freight depot track.   There were no platforms there in 1971, just gravel to rail height as in this image from1974 and I think it was still like that in 1992 when I returned.

 

This is a schematic plan (of the current situation at Grand Canyon, It's definitely not to scale and the actual line is curved throughout.

When I was exploring it in 1971 (and I think in 1992) none of the level crossings and associated roads were there. The station was rather off to one side of the main South Rim tourist area. and both the main line and the Y disappeared off between the trees. Looking in StreetView at the new buildings south of the line and eeither side of the Y tail track now they all look very recent.

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Pacific231G
addition of image and schematic plan

[Reorte]

Not read the whole thread yet but are there also possible licensing issues / costs with the liveries and logos of current trains?

Edited December 5, 2023 by Reorte

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Yes it has changed, considerably. Here’s an example

https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/product/undecorated-kit-pullman-roof/

 

With more and more ‘standard’ locomotives and rolling stock, the possibility of ‘blank’ kits is there. Whether they’re viable in the marketplace is another matter. The complexity of liveries would be for the purchaser to resolve.

Interesting. It seems that this manufacturer at least is only offering kits for undecorated models. I guess that makes sense as it's a lot easier to paint the flat components than the assembled model. Athearn-Roundhouse (now one comapny) also seem now to only offer RTR though the detail and quality looks to be much the same as the kits I remember. Does this mean that modellers today are less capable of assembling a simple kit (it took about ten minutes) or are there other reasons?  ISTR that one reason for offering cars as "shake the box" kits, apart from being less likely to get damaged in transit, was they attracted less sales tax.  You also got a certain, rather spurious given how simple they were, satisfaction from having assembled them yourself.  

[St. Simon]

31 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Not read the whole thread yet but are there also possible licensing issues / costs with the liveries and logos of current trains?

 

Hi,

 

In theory there is, but I've been told that most TOCs are more than happy to let manufactures use their liveries and logos if they get a couple of models to display in the office or as gifts (and obviously if the manufacture approaches them into a suitable and polite way!)

 

I think it's only the 'big' corporations such as Virgin that make a more formal issue of licensing.

 

Simon

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

In theory there is, but I've been told that most TOCs are more than happy to let manufactures use their liveries and logos

 

 

Why should they get all legalistic and  pernickety over the use of their logos

It's effectively free advertising for them. 

[Dungrange]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Why should they get all legalistic and  pernickety over the use of their logos

It's effectively free advertising for them. 

 

That's the way you and I see it, but I understand that the legal teams at some companies don't see it the same way - they see someone trying to make a living off the use of their brand and they feel that they need to protect that brand.

[woodenhead]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Why should they get all legalistic and  pernickety over the use of their logos

It's effectively free advertising for them. 

 

8 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

That's the way you and I see it, but I understand that the legal teams at some companies don't see it the same way - they see someone trying to make a living off the use of their brand and they feel that they need to protect that brand.

It's probably never an issue when it comes to model trains as they are not likely to be ripping off the company through use of it's logo   But if someone malicously makes use of a logo they could potentially claim it was ok for them to use it without permission if they could demonstrate that the company was quite happy for a model train company to use it's logo without permission.

[Reorte]

I raised the question about liveries and logos because I know that some Train Simulator trains were only available for a limited time due to licencing. Virgin was certainly one of those, with the North Wales coast route originally having a Virgin-liveried Voyager included in it, which was eventually withdrawn (and has since been re-released with whoever runs that now).

 

It's a bit sad but as said some companies aren't keen on the perceived idea of someone else (even non-competitors) making any money off their brand, and / or worry about it being mis-used and loss of control with it if they don't cling to it as tightly as possible. Wouldn't be surprised if some would even worry about someone exhibiting a model of their train arriving late.

 

You could always get your own back by saying the train's supposed to be there on your layout but it's been cancelled!

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Why should they get all legalistic and  pernickety over the use of their logos

It's effectively free advertising for them. 

 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

 

That's the way you and I see it, but I understand that the legal teams at some companies don't see it the same way - they see someone trying to make a living off the use of their brand and they feel that they need to protect that brand.

It's probably never an issue when it comes to model trains as they are not likely to be ripping off the company through use of it's logo   But if someone malicously makes use of a logo they could potentially claim it was ok for them to use it without permission if they could demonstrate that the company was quite happy for a model train company to use it's logo without permission.

 

Sadly there is at least one example where that is not the case.

 

Accor hotel group, then owners of the CIWL trade mark and the logo and operators of the VSOE, took Jouef to court for the misuse of the trade mark (as displayed along the top of each coach) and the logo (in the middle of each side).  They won and shortly after Jouef went into receivership - possibly linked, possibly not.  

 

There could be no question of Jouef somehow degrading the worth of Accor's trade property, because on the VSEO itself, you could buy H0 models of the coaches in the train as souvenirs.  These were the Jouef models that infringed the trade marks!

Edited December 5, 2023 by Andy Hayter

[Reorte]

On 04/12/2023 at 15:26, BrakeCoach said:

I would say nostalgia. Everyone likes to see and own at least a model of a steam locomotive, even if they haven't been in one when it was still around. And since most of the model rail hobby since the end of steam was largely based on this nostalgia (the documentary "The Joy of Train Sets" comes to mind), current models, i.e. Class 800 IET, don't seem to get that much attention as say, an LNER A3.

Does nostalgia make sense when the thing in question stopped before you were born? The whole point of it is that it's based on past memories. And thus I'd say my interest in steam is not based on nostalgia (I was born after mainline steam ended), but purely on it having a look and feel that fits with what I like.

 

Where I am a bit nostalgic is where I see a loco in BR blue, particularly with a set of appropriately-livered carriages. That is purely nostalgia (it's not even a livery I'm particularly fond of, but I'm definitely nostalgic about it).

[009 micro modeller]

3 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

In theory there is, but I've been told that most TOCs are more than happy to let manufactures use their liveries and logos if they get a couple of models to display in the office or as gifts (and obviously if the manufacture approaches them into a suitable and polite way!)

 

I think it's only the 'big' corporations such as Virgin that make a more formal issue of licensing.

 

Simon

A little bit off topic (and Virgin has ceased to be a UK rail operator for now so the situation might have changed) but I gather that at one stage the actual WCML company was a partnership involving Virgin and another company, who themselves licensed the brand from the main company. So that might explain it.

[BrakeCoach]

23 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Does nostalgia make sense when the thing in question stopped before you were born? The whole point of it is that it's based on past memories. And thus I'd say my interest in steam is not based on nostalgia (I was born after mainline steam ended), but purely on it having a look and feel that fits with what I like.

 

Where I am a bit nostalgic is where I see a loco in BR blue, particularly with a set of appropriately-livered carriages. That is purely nostalgia (it's not even a livery I'm particularly fond of, but I'm definitely nostalgic about it).

Nostalgia doesn't always mean something that happened in your lifetime. Like I have mentioned, people do like the aesthetic and 'feel' that steam locomotives used to have, and thats why they often sell more than something contemporary.

[PMP]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Athearn-Roundhouse (now one comapny) also seem now to only offer RTR though the detail and quality looks to be much the same as the kits I remember.  

Athearn Roundhouse is their ‘railroad’ style brand. Proto2000 IIRC have gone into the regular medium range brand. Genesis is their top range with finescale details and DCC sound, matching and often exceeding the specifications our top RTR models have.

https://www.athearn.com/search?q=undecorated&prefn1=subBrand&prefv1=GENESIS&srule=best-matches&sz=24

 

In the North American market there is a demand for undecorated models of both historical and contemporary equipment. These are for freelance liveries or  prototype schemes which haven’t been released by the manufacturer.

 

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

A little bit off topic (and Virgin has ceased to be a UK rail operator for now so the situation might have changed) but I gather that at one stage the actual WCML company was a partnership involving Virgin and another company, who themselves licensed the brand from the main company. So that might explain it.

That applies to most Big Brand companies.  Virgin Rail was 49%(?) owned by Stagecoach and was only one company in the Virgin Group of companies.  The only thing it had in common with Virgin Music (for example) was that they both "rented" the rights to use the name and logo from the parent company.

 

To come back to the OP's question, you probably can't model the current scene any more or less realistically than any other, because modellers and models - both layouts and RTR stock - have always disproportionally represented not what the real, ordinary railway looks like, but the interesting bits we'd like it to look like.  That's why you've always been able to model the GN main line much easier than a secondary branch line in Northumberland.  It's also why a lot of current scene layouts represent a main line with hardly any commuter traffic, about ten intermodals or coal trains per hour and a small diesel depot where every operator services their Class 66s.  There are no such railways in this country, but it's what interests the builders.

 

As for selling unpainted EMUs to make it easier to keep up to date?  No chance.  It would give the perception that the product should be much cheaper, but would likely save the manufacturer less than 5%; 4-car EMUs aren't suddenly going to £200 cheaper.  Plus when you consider how many locos get returned to Hornby covered in glue from when the buyer tried to fit some spares from the box or nameplates, you realise that a good proportion of their customers can't operate a tube of glue and have less dexterity than a baboon.

[Reorte]

4 hours ago, BrakeCoach said:

Nostalgia doesn't always mean something that happened in your lifetime. Like I have mentioned, people do like the aesthetic and 'feel' that steam locomotives used to have, and thats why they often sell more than something contemporary.

Then that's just something you happen to like - as you say, the aesthetic and feel, not nostalgia. The idea of being nostalgic for something that was never part of your life is contradictory. And as my BR Blue example was intended to illustrate I don't even particular like the aesthetic (don't hate it, but can't say I think it's great), but I am nostalgic about it.

 

Nostalgia isn't simply "like something that was in the past," it's about revisiting (either in the mind, or physically what of them still exists) past memories and experience. Another example - I like classical music, entirely on its own merit. There's no nostalgia for Beethoven there. But there may be some nostalgia alone for music from when I was young (can't think of any examples off the top of my head mind you).

Edited December 5, 2023 by Reorte

[jjb1970]

I am an aviation enthusiast too and occasionally buy 1/200 die-cast airline models. Licensing is a big thing in that hobby and some airlines are very protective of their image. In some cases they just want ££££s to use it, others offer models themselves and want to control things themselves. It created a sub-set of 'white box' models and some model companies wielded licensing like a weapon.

[kevinlms]

8 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

Sadly there is at least one example where that is not the case.

 

Accor hotel group, then owners of the CIWL trade mark and the logo and operators of the VSOE, took Jouef to court for the misuse of the trade mark (as displayed along the top of each coach) and the logo (in the middle of each side).  They won and shortly after Jouef went into receivership - possibly linked, possibly not.  

 

There could be no question of Jouef somehow degrading the worth of Accor's trade property, because on the VSEO itself, you could buy H0 models of the coaches in the train as souvenirs.  These were the Jouef models that infringed the trade marks!

There's the answer. Jouef WERE potentially taking sales off them, by selling them to other retailers. When buyers should have been buying them as passengers!

Wonder why Jouef failed in presenting that argument in court?

[Andy Hayter]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

There's the answer. Jouef WERE potentially taking sales off them, by selling them to other retailers. When buyers should have been buying them as passengers!

Wonder why Jouef failed in presenting that argument in court?

 

That may seem the simple logic but does not change the fact that Jouef were using the trade marks without permission.

[PMP]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

.  It's also why a lot of current scene layouts represent a main line with hardly any commuter traffic, about ten intermodals or coal trains per hour and a small diesel depot where every operator services their Class 66s.  There are no such railways in this country, but it's what interests the builders.

 

As for selling unpainted EMUs to make it easier to keep up to date?  No chance.  It would give the perception that the product should be much cheaper, but would likely save the manufacturer less than 5%; 4-car EMUs aren't suddenly going to £200 cheaper.  Plus when you consider how many locos get returned to Hornby covered in glue from when the buyer tried to fit some spares from the box or nameplates, you realise that a good proportion of their customers can't operate a tube of glue and have less dexterity than a baboon.

Try the contemporary Doncaster to Lincoln relief line. Has a very good mix of daytime traffic, relatively speaking, intermodal, single  and twin car units, light engine moves, and biomass. Then there’s the ECML diverts and specials, for a contemporary twin track line there’s quite a bit of ‘interest’ with the regular traffic. That’s what I used to see from my office windows. A few years back when Cottam power station was open, through Worksop/Retford you’d see a constant stream of coal trains separated by pacers and units. There are lines with a variety of traffic if you look for them.

 

Theres no reason for people to think the livery blanks should be much cheaper. Those that do think like that aren’t the sharpest tools in the box, or the customer these are aimed at. The blanks are aimed at people with the desire to do their own thing. The North American market products are about £10-£15 cheaper than the livery models, the market accepts them without an issue. The ‘normal’ livery product will still be there, all the NA manufacturers do is build a batch with unpainted shells/interior, that retail concurrently with (identical) painted products. There’s no massive cost saving to the manufacturers, they still have to assemble the core components/vehicle, and pack them, which the customer pays for, hence they aren’t significantly cheaper.

 

I’ve no idea how many models get sent to Hornby because the owners faulty application of accessories, presumably you know, what volume is it? They may do a few to help out, but a faulty application of accessories is down to the end user, not the manufacturers. If they despatch a serviceable toy (model), how the customer treats it subsequently is down to them.

Edited December 6, 2023 by PMP
Addition

[Geep7]

22 hours ago, SD85 said:

Seemingly every RTR 1960s third rail EMU has been produced but not the 4-CIG which was the mainstay of Brighton line traffic for decades.

I still don't understand why a 4-Cig hasn't been done yet RTR. The Phase 1 stock was introduced in Green in 1963, the Phase 2 stock in Blue & Grey in 1972/3. Since then, i'm pretty sure they've carried every livery there ever was in the south until they were withdrawn. Some were reduced to 3-car sets in their final years, including the 2 units (in Blue & Grey and Green) that worked the Lymington branch. Please Bachmann, if you're reading this.....

[GMKAT7]

Good morning folks,

 

Boeing are known for being ruthless/blood sucking (delete as applicable) when it comes to licensing.

 

In the model aircraft kits world, the likes of Airfix, etc have paid licensing fees to Boeing for models and had to include a Boeing official mark on the kit box. This has been for non-Boeing original designs, such as the North American P51D Mustang and McDonnell Douglas F4 Phantom II. Both companies acquired by Boeing but not their design originally.

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[C126]

4 hours ago, Geep7 said:

I still don't understand why a 4-Cig hasn't been done yet RTR. The Phase 1 stock was introduced in Green in 1963, the Phase 2 stock in Blue & Grey in 1972/3. Since then, i'm pretty sure they've carried every livery there ever was in the south until they were withdrawn. Some were reduced to 3-car sets in their final years, including the 2 units (in Blue & Grey and Green) that worked the Lymington branch. Please Bachmann, if you're reading this.....

 

I forget how long it takes him, but I am beginning to think the only way I will see a OO 4-CIG on my layout before I am quite gaga is by paying Danny Havlik for one of his exquisite models.  Alas, approx. £800, I think (but worth it with the time and effort).  Seen at D.E.M.U. Showcase 2023.

 

Would a crowd-funded production-line bulk-purchase persuade him to reduce the cost?

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by C126
Typos.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

That may seem the simple logic but does not change the fact that Jouef were using the trade marks without permission.

But the fact that they were selling 'illegal' copies, ought to have mitigated the issue.

 

But I know you don't get what is right in court, you get LAW!